Flying disks have been enjoyed by the sporting public for more than 50 years. Generally thrown by hand, these flying disks, such as Frisbee™ products by Wham-o, Inc., are usually flat, lightweight disks with a circumferential edge that rotate while flying. Aside from simple games of catch, where the disk is tossed between two players, flying disks have also found application in rule-based games, such as disk golf, or disk baseball, where the disk replaces the traditional ball used in the respective games. The basic flying disk has evolved from the lightweight Frisbee™ disk to better suit these games, offering smaller diameter and heavier designs that are thrown farther and with desired handling and flying characteristics.
However, players are still limited in the distance that a human arm can throw a flying disk. Depending on disk design and wind conditions, a distance of 300 feet is generally considered to be at the far end of human ability to throw a flying disk.
While the above discussion has focused on flying disks thrown by hand, prior art lacks focus on the question of increasing force, velocity and spin rate to the launching of a flying disk. Some art focuses on providing a hand-held apparatus for launching a flying disk, for instance in the area of clay pigeons used in skeet shooting applications.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,076,004 to Huelskamp shows such a launcher for clay pigeons. As illustrated and described, this is a one-handed launching apparatus that does not contemplate distances longer than a human arm can throw a flying disk. Even if Huelskamp is used with two hands holding its grip, its overall length limits the amount of force with which the launcher can be swung.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,157,828 to Cosmopulos shows a disc launching and catching device. Cosmopulos' design incorporates a handle attached to an elongated curved head. However, even if two hands are placed in crossbar 56 as one would a baseball bat or golf club, there is not enough distance from crossbar 56 to a disk that would allow generation of sufficient force to launch a flying disk beyond distances capable by a human arm using no device. Furthermore, there is not enough contact along the circumference of a disk to provide friction necessary to generate sufficient spin to throw a disk beyond the human arm's capability.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,181,500 to Chamberland shows a pair of pincers for throwing and catching a flying disc, which also suffers similar shortcomings. Chamberlain's design fails to provide a large enough contact area to generate spin. Chamberlain actually works less effectively as the human hand because of this reduced contact area.
Finally, US Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0070198 to Pickering incorporates a neck between a handle and a disk launching head. However, Pickering discloses a hinged head and a collapsible neck. The hinged head does not maintain a disk in contact with the entire gripping area of the launcher; rather, upper portion 16 is forced back when the user throws a flying disc that is held by the C shape 150. Because hinged joint 10 connects two separate pieces, there is insufficient flexion in handle portion 50 to help deliver force to C shape 150.
The prior art discussed above also share an additional shortcoming. None address the problem of locating a lost disk. A problem inherent with long distance throws of a flying disk is losing the disk in the brush.
The prior art discussed above share yet another shortcoming. None address the issue of fitting an amputee with a disk launching apparatus.